[Advaita-l] Ishwara Turiya?

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

The last sentence had a typo "We cannot negate Hiranyagabha to a blade of
grass, product of avidya, using jnana. By what will be negate Saguna
Brahman, who is nirupadhika by definition?". It shoul read as ""We can
negate Hiranyagabha to a blade of grass, product of avidya, using jnana. By
what will be negate Saguna Brahman, who is nirupadhika by definition?"

On Sunday, March 11, 2012, Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 3:13 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
>> rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This is not correct.  According to Vedanta and even according to the Gita
>> without the Consciousness aspect contributing Itself along with mAyA the
>> transforming entity there is no creation possible.  मयाध्यक्षेण प्रकृतिः
>> सूयते सचराचरम् .  With Me as the Seer, Superintendent, Consciousness,
>> prakRti brings forth the world of sentient and insentient beings (moving
>> and unmoving).  So the Consciousness aspect is NirguNa Chaitanyam here.
>
>
> Then we have to say that Nirguna Brahman is the Omniscient Lord because
Sankara says so in his commentary to BG 7.6! Does Saguna Brahman have
non-Consciousness aspect to Him? I dont think so because He does not have a
body or mind. As you know, He is beyond Hiranyagarbha and Virata.
>>
>>
>> This view is not admitted by Advaita.  As I have clarified earlier
several
>> times, on the basis of Dr.Mani Dravid Sastrigal's explanation, based
again
>> on the Advaita siddhi and the Laghu chandrika, the aprAkRta is well
within
>> mAyA/prakRti.  The only difference between the other bodies and
Bhagavan's
>> is that the former is a product of panchabhautika transformation and the
>> latter is a product that bypasses this step but stems straightaway from
>> Maya.  For this reason it no way becomes the same as Brahman.
>
>
> Does the bypass path lead to a pancha-bautika form like ours? Does
Ishwara occupy this form like a jiva occupies karma generated body? If an
advaitin answers yes to this, he will be directly contradicting Sridhara
Swami and Madhusudana.Unless he finds support in the writings of any one
advaita acharya before them, he will stand outside the tradition. My search
so far hasyielded no direct textual support to say that Ishwara's form is
pancha-bautika produced through a non-pancha-bautikaprocess. I think we
have to be extremely careful in quoting Sri Mani Dravid Sastrigal on this
because Sri Devanathan, who studied under him for years, has a
different understanding that contradicts yours. Anyway, does Sri Mani
Dravid Sastrigal differentiate betweenVishnu and Para Maya? Krishna Himself
says His Para Maya is of the nature of the Self (Consciousness).  Or does
he say Vishnu is acit? :) We cannot say that the form is paramayika and in
the same breadth say it is from Him. If we say that Ishwara, the Self of
all, Sakshi, is mithya, then it is NirIshwara Advaita.
>
>>
>> whatsoever any longer.  The very mAyAshabalitatvam stems because of mAyA.
>> When mAyA is known to be naught, there is a negation of everything that
>> depended upon this mAyA.
>
>
> Only the bhinna prakrti or apara maya (the cause of samsara) is to be
transcendended. After saying that para maya, svam maya, vaishnavim maya
etc., non-different from Vishnu, we dont try to cross over that but realize
our oneness with Him.
>>
>> This verse has been commented upon from the nirguNabrahman angle,
>> completely, by Shankara and Anandagiri. Shankara comments 'IshAnaH' is
>> explained by Gaudapaada Himself in this verse as 'prabhuH', Lord.  For
what
>> is He the Lord? For duHkha nivRtti.  'Tarati shokam Atmavit' says the
>> Shruti.  The knower of the Self goes above misery.  So this verse does
not
>> talk about the saguNa brahman (Ishwara).
>>
>
> Is Ishwara anAtma? Gaudapada has very carefully chosen the word Isha to
define Turiya. Also, just because tarati shokam atmavit does not sayt that
that it is possible to become an atma vit without the grace of Ishwara or
that Ishwara is anAtma. The Lord, the innermost Self, is well known to be a
swift reliever from the ocean of misery from the Gita. Also, it is said
that by knowing Him one crosses the ocean of misery. So, Isha, the Lord,
the innermost Self of all, is referred to in this verse. So, after negation
of everything He remains. We cannot negate Hiranyagabha to a blade of
grass, product of avidya, using jnana. By what will be negate Saguna
Brahman, who is nirupadhika by definition?